Report: David Koch to sign amicus brief supporting gay marriage

OMG, I smell rat poo in the cellar, what's this, the new republican 2016 strategy? accepting defeat? the war is over? I wonder why he picked the Michigan case, home of tea party central. I don't want Koch money or their endorsement, manure is manure and it always smells, no matter how you package it

May be he got a best blow job by his man slave at CPAC and changed his mind

The brief he will reportedly sign in DeBoer v. Snyder, a case that could afford same-sex couples a constitutional right to marry, will host a number of other prominent conservative signatories, including retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former Reagan White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein and former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman. News of the brief was first reported Tuesday by The Washington Post.

It is beyond refute that the libertarian Koch brothers spend hundreds-of-millions of dollars to abolish government to eliminate taxation and regulatory agencies they claim interferes with their crusade for power and wealth. However, to accomplish their goal of controlling the government, they have had to climb in bed with fundamentalist Christians intent on using the government to control and subvert women’s rights and force adherence to biblical values on all Americans. The Kochs have claimed, on several occasions, that their interest in social and cultural issues, particularly religious attacks on women and gays is non-existent, but through their “Secret Bank” (Freedom Partners) they are heavily-funding Christian women’s groups whose stated mission is to eliminate women’s reproductive health choices and push “biblical values on all citizens;” not exactly a libertarian agenda.

In their drive to control the U.S. Congress, and soon the federal government, the Kochs left no stone unturned in backing organizations that challenge America’s so-called equality in issues of race, gender, and freedom from religious imposition, and whose stated goal is enforcing Christian moralistic teachings on all Americans. The Kochs’ funding vehicles, such as the Freedom Partners, is not forthcoming on where or how it allocates its untold millions to control Congress, but according to its most recent tax filing it is flush with anonymous money and doled out more than $40-million in just the past 12 months to bible-based groups intent on electing candidates who oppose women’s rights from abortion to private and personal healthcare choices to contraception use among many, many other control mechanisms.

I didn't say that I support the Koch brothers. Far from it. I try my best to avoid buying any of their products on a regular basis. David Koch has stated previously that he supports marriage equality. That is the main reason why him signing the brief does not surprise me. But that is not enough for me to want to support them.

metta8 saidI didn't say that I support the Koch brothers. Far from it. I try my best to avoid buying any of their products on a regular basis. David Koch has stated previously that he supports marriage equality. That is the main reason why him signing the brief does not surprise me. But that is not enough for me to want to support them.

Koch is just as OCD sex control fetish crazed as their political conservative counterparts, I don't want their gay marriage endorsement given their already known control freak agenda, something is very fishy here, pay close attention

For the record the Koch brothers are not GOP but Libertarians until Team Paul (Ron and Rand) messed it up. They supported gay equality since at least 1998 when Mike Eisner, chairman of Disney refused to bow to evangelical threats of boycotts and marches at Disneyworld for his policy of nondiscrimination & employee insurance benefits for spouses. Koch Industries followed Disney's pro-gay lead a year later.

Sorry guys, but if the Kochs and their money are weighing in for gay equality they have my respect more than the current president who's flip flopped six times on it since he ran for the Illinois state senate.

If your enemy has stopped putting energy into a lesser battle he has lost but you continue to flame that battle which you have already won, guess who will have more energy to continue fighting the greater war.

This is why world consciousness is not so easy to change, what Castaneda referred to as everyone's attention being so set onto a specific reality as to hold that in place as if it had its own cohesion when it was everyone's attention keeping it there, making everyone who is unable to break free and experience other realities experience instead the one reality everyone else is experiencing as an unchanging, unchangeable reality. Reality in this sense is a deer in the headlights.

This also plays into what I mentioned in another thread, the second consciousness, of how we perceive how the world perceives us. So picture someone who, say, wants to stop smoking. But he knows that everyone who knows him still sees him with a cigarette in his hand. How would that not make it even more difficult to stop smoking? And this is why things like encouragement works for some people, why affirmations work for some people. Things that reinforce the direction of change instead of things that hold change back.

bobbobbob saidFor the record the Koch brothers are not GOP but Libertarians until Team Paul (Ron and Rand) messed it up. They supported gay equality since at least 1998 when Mike Eisner, chairman of Disney refused to bow to evangelical threats of boycotts and marches at Disneyworld for his policy of nondiscrimination & employee insurance benefits for spouses. Koch Industries followed Disney's pro-gay lead a year later.

Sorry guys, but if the Kochs and their money are weighing in for gay equality they have my respect more than the current president who's flip flopped six times on it since he ran for the Illinois state senate.

I was listening to you until your mindlessly stupid comment on Obama. Why do you people of the Right think anyone will listen if you constantly say such idiotic things? The Republican party has used gays as a target group to raise money and get out the vote repeatedly and is the sponsor of all ALL anti-gay legislation. Obama has done more for our community than all Republicans combined and yet you say such stupid things?

Destinharbor said Why do you people of the Right think anyone will listen if you constantly say such idiotic things?

I guess it goes both ways - just yesterday you declared that the number of people who lost their health insurance because of Obamacare was "miniscule" (it's about 8 million) but you view "8 million signed up for Obamacare" as a huge success.

Do you not see the idiocy of that statement you made?

No one lost their health care. 1.5% had shitty policies that didn't cover basic things replaced with better policies that didn't exclude pre-existing issues.

The topic was insurance coverage. You suggesting that when one policy is replaced with another represents someone losing their insurance is the kind of lie that the thread was attacking. That more people have insurance today because of Obamacare is indisputable and because substandard policies were replaced with conforming policies is hardly a hardship. When I left the corporate world and had to buy a single policy, I learned first hand of the abuses of the insurance world. I was turned down for coverage because I used statins. Statins! Obama fixed that insanity. And the real problem with the old system you seem to prefer is cost shifting. That is still happening but less and less. And that will be improved in time as well. There's a reason why Americans pay 80% more than in other 1st world countries for healthcare and it had to be brought under control. To parse silly distinctions like you people do to criticize is, in fact, the willful lie that thread was discussing.

Destinharbor saidThe topic was insurance coverage. You suggesting that when one policy is replaced with another represents someone losing their insurance is the kind of lie that the thread was attacking. That more people have insurance today because of Obamacare is indisputable and because substandard policies were replaced with conforming policies is hardly a hardship. When I left the corporate world and had to buy a single policy, I learned first hand of the abuses of the insurance world. I was turned down for coverage because I used statins. Statins! Obama fixed that insanity. And the real problem with the old system you seem to prefer is cost shifting. That is still happening but less and less. And that will be improved in time as well. There's a reason why Americans pay 80% more than in other 1st world countries for healthcare and it had to be brought under control. To parse silly distinctions like you people do to criticize is, in fact, the willful lie that thread was discussing.

OK, you're all over the map. I'll try again to get you focused:

Obama claimed dozens of times that "If you like your health insurance plan, you can KEEP your health insurance plan, nobody is going to take that away from you."

You are having difficulties grasping the meaning of that statement. Please think about what that means. If I have "Plan A from Company A" and I liked it, and I was then told that due to Obamacare regulations, "Plan A from Company A" could no longer be legally offered, I lost my health insurance plan because of Obamacare.

Do you understand?

If not, read it again, and again, and again until you do.

lol

You don't get it, do you? You really are so far down the rabbit hole that you think anyone cares about your silly games? You can pretend that the 1.5% of people who got improved plans because of Obamacare represents some terrible lie by Obama but people who actually have the capacity to think, just don't buy it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of non-thinkers out there and that may be your best hope. As the original thread said, the Right is just about asserting their fiction and saying it loudly and often and hoping to get followers because many people can't think for themselves. You're actually pretty good at it. But in the end, reality does matter.

bobbobbob saidDestinAll i said about Obama was that he'd flip flopped on gay equality a total of six times since running for the Illinois state Senate and you pissed in your pants???

If you have a problem with that please consult (dates approximate)Rachel Maddow 2012John Stewart summer 2014David Axelrod (his new book)NPR radio 2009 and Ru Paul's on Drag U 2013

Too bad for you if you didn't learn in school to put facts and reason ahead of bullshit and nonsense.

Deal with it.

Silly. Everyone knew exactly what you meant. Obama shepherded the issue through to a successful conclusion (almost). He played the game of politics to a good end. You can have your Koch boys which you find preferable. And the rest of your Right wing cabal. They've all done so much for the gay cause.

As metta said, I'm not surprised at all by this announcement. Remember that it was David Boies and Ted Olson who got CA's Prop 8 thrown out, NOT the ACLU, whose motion to intervene was tossed, too. Anyone w/ an open mind who reads up on the FACTS behind the Kochs, and most other supposed bogeymen of the gay left, should have sense enough to realize that they're hardly the monsters HRC and other gay Democratic money-grabbers make them out to be. And, who's to say people other than Obama can't "evolve" too?

bobbobbob saidDestinAll i said about Obama was that he'd flip flopped on gay equality a total of six times since running for the Illinois state Senate and you pissed in your pants???

If you have a problem with that please consult (dates approximate)Rachel Maddow 2012John Stewart summer 2014David Axelrod (his new book)NPR radio 2009 and Ru Paul's on Drag U 2013

Too bad for you if you didn't learn in school to put facts and reason ahead of bullshit and nonsense.

Deal with it.

Silly. Everyone knew exactly what you meant. Obama shepherded the issue through to a successful conclusion (almost). He played the game of politics to a good end. You can have your Koch boys which you find preferable. And the rest of your Right wing cabal. They've all done so much for the gay cause.

Interesting!

I'm probably a lot better at saying exactly what I mean than you are at guessing what I mean. I said what I meant to say.

You admit Obama has played a good game of politics yet you seem incapable of wrapping your mind around the reality that in conventional politics gays have always been nothing but pieces on the board game of politics. But it's not only Obama who has done this repetitively. Based on his indisputable record of vacillating on gay equality no logical thought processes allow us to assume he will not do so again when it is in his best political interests.

How is it different than if we were talking about the manager of your neighborhood convenience store changing a sign on his door five times between I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE/GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG?

A. gays are dispensible pawns in the political game (he's thrown us under the bus twice already)B. Based on his words and over 12 years that he's ever supported gay equality out of principle.

David Axelrod's new book gives a great account of the ebb and flow of Whitehouse support for gay equality.

In 2008 he threw gays under the bus for the most homophobic religious groups in the USA."Axelrod wrote in his new memoir that Obama “modified” his position because his aides worried about alienating black Christian leaders, and then complained that he didn’t like “bullsh-tting” about it."

Ya, I heard that story from the book. Haven't read it. I assume you understand the "bullshitting" he was feeling he had to do was to not openly support gay causes when first running and talking to the black church groups. Axelrod was clear on that point in one of the interviews I heard. That issue was fresh in everyone's mind after Prop 8 in California. So to take it from that, he got himself elected and then brought a great percentage of the black community along on our issues after he was elected. I call that smart leadership. You can say it was opportunistic but if that was all it was, well, his strategy worked and we benefited. As did he because 1) it helped get him elected and 2) that was an issue he cared about. That is in very clear contrast to the Republican strategy of vilifying us and using every opportunity they could find to harm us. And as permanently as possible through Constitutional amendments. Furthermore, his appointees to the bench lean our way whereas most Republican appointees do not. Can you not see a clear difference? Really?

Sometimes I can't tell if someone is willfully ignorant or just doesn't know much about a subject.

Do you know that the very first act of Clinton, THE FIRST, was to try to change the policy of the military to exclude gays. The backlash he got from the Republicans, the military, and unfortunately many Dems was so ferocious that he feared the threatened Constitutional Amendment (sponsored by Republicans) that would have constitutionally made us second class citizens that DADT was his only option to stop the movement. And he thought it would at least help (it didn't). He's stated publicly that he regrets signing it but at the time, it at least corralled the Dems and stopped the Republicans. The Defense of Marriage Act followed shortly. And let's see, who sponsored that?

That's a far cry from the current Republicans who still are trying to harm us. In every way they can. 22 years later.

MGINSD saidAs metta said, I'm not surprised at all by this announcement. Remember that it was David Boies and Ted Olson who got CA's Prop 8 thrown out, NOT the ACLU, whose motion to intervene was tossed, too. Anyone w/ an open mind who reads up on the FACTS behind the Kochs, and most other supposed bogeymen of the gay left, should have sense enough to realize that they're hardly the monsters HRC and other gay Democratic money-grabbers make them out to be. And, who's to say people other than Obama can't "evolve" too?

That is 100% factually correct. The Kochs are not enemies to the movement for equality. The OP is just stating a lot of baseless hysteria.

@DestinHarbor, thank you for refuting the GOP/conservative "arguments" with facts and reason.

The GOP/conservative posters here support the Koch brothers and Republicans MORE than they do Obama and Dems when it comes to LGBT rights. That is absurd.

The hilarious part is that when these gay conservative/GOP people attend a conference, the minute they turn their back to refresh their whiskey or to say hello to someone else, everyone thinks "stupid faggot" in their head and all along considered them as 'other' and beneath them. I know because I've attended conservative functions and fundraisers, the federalist society meetings, and since I don't announce my sexuality and people assume I'm straight, I've heard the comments FIRST HAND and seen their smug two-faced smiles. It's the same with black conservative/GOPers.

It's sickening, pathetic and would be a real laugh-riot if it weren't so sad. Dems in general, and Obama specifically might not be perfect, but they're ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE away from the two-faced GOPers. At least this gay black man has enough dignity and self-respect to stand by a party and a President that don't laugh behind my back.

It's as sad as blacks who argue that slavery "wasn't that bad," etc. Sickening, a form of Stockholm Syndrome. Thanks DestinHarbor.

Svnw688 said@DestinHarbor, thank you for refuting the GOP/conservative "arguments" with facts and reason.

The GOP/conservative posters here support the Koch brothers and Republicans MORE than they do Obama and Dems when it comes to LGBT rights. That is absurd.

The hilarious part is that when these gay conservative/GOP people attend a conference, the minute they turn their back to refresh their whiskey or to say hello to someone else, everyone thinks "stupid faggot" in their head and all along considered them as 'other' and beneath them. I know because I've attended conservative functions and fundraisers, the federalist society meetings, and since I don't announce my sexuality and people assume I'm straight, I've heard the comments FIRST HAND and seen their smug two-faced smiles. It's the same with black conservative/GOPers.

It's sickening, pathetic and would be a real laugh-riot if it weren't so sad. Dems in general, and Obama specifically might not be perfect, but they're ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE away from the two-faced GOPers. At least this gay black man has enough dignity and self-respect to stand by a party and a President that don't laugh behind my back.

It's as sad as blacks who argue that slavery "wasn't that bad," etc. Sickening, a form of Stockholm Syndrome. Thanks DestinHarbor.

That was back than you naive man. The GOP is changing for the better and the narrow minded bible thumping screwballs will soon be booted out the front door because a steadily growing number of republicans, libertarians, and independents are getting sick and damned tired of the GOP getting ruined by these religious lunatics and their failed attempts to "save America". You definitely need to get with it.

The specific events I'm referring to occurred from approximately 2004 through just last month. That is not old news. And if anything, the GOP is MORE conservative and anti-LGBT now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Even Judge Posner left the GOP party because it got "too crazy."

I don't think of myself as an 'operative', but I am heavily involved in conservative and liberal organizations. On the conservative side I have deep and meaningful connections with Notre Dame, two dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church, and The Federalist Society. Everyone at these organizations assumes I'm straight, and I don't contradict them. Each of these organizations is grappling with the LGBT issue, and I have heard not just the official policy statements everyone gets, but I've been in "the room" when positions were being created and real talk was happening. You'd be shocked at how LGBT people are regarded. Frankly, it was sickening.

On the liberal side I'm involved with HRC, the North Carolina Obama Task Force, and the New York City Council. Obviously at HRC, but at the other organizations, I have never heard an LGBT person belittled or thought of as 'other' in a negative way.

You can say that doesn't matter, but it means the world to me. I can't surround myself with people who scoff behind my back and regard me as a 'faggot'.

The hilarious part is that when these gay conservative/GOP people attend a conference, the minute they turn their back to refresh their whiskey or to say hello to someone else, everyone thinks "stupid faggot" in their head and all along considered them as 'other' and beneath them. I know because I've attended conservative functions and fundraisers, the federalist society meetings, and since I don't announce my sexuality and people assume I'm straight, I've heard the comments FIRST HAND and seen their smug two-faced smiles. It's the same with black conservative/GOPers.

Since you relate an event, if not several, from first hand knowledge, I will not dispute what you saw; I've no basis for doing so. But, permit me to relate a somewhat similar personal story. Several years ago, while I was on the board of a supposedly non-partisan SF Bay Area gay PAC, that was in reality a conduit for Democratic and HRCampaign (i.e., Democrat) fundraising, I invited one of my black friends in Log Cabin GOPers to attend a board party w/ me; he was the then-president of LCR-Silicon Valley. When we arrived, I noticed he was the only black person there. You should have seen all those wonderfully inclusive and tolerant SF lefties' jowls fall! Apparently, from what was later told me, there was disbelief that there were such things as gay black GOPers, and it was passing rude for me to bring one to their attention, if not into one of their homes. Needless to say, he was snubbed throughout the entire evening, as was I except for the inevitable hit for contributions to HRC, which I of course declined.

Fast forward a few months to that same board's next meeting. A lone black man was there when I arrived, alone at the conference table and apparently being ignored. I sat down beside him, introduced myself, and we had a nice get acquainted chat before the business got underway. During the introductions session, not unlike those forced-friendly round-robins that occur in kindergartens and at corporate retreats, another board member introduced my black colleague as "Blankety-Blank, our African-American member," with all the false sincerity those words carry. My new friend squirmed uncomfortably in his chair, I shot shade at the rest of the board, bumped my new buddy w/ my elbow, and said "Hang in there," which he did for the rest of the meeting, which he promptly left, never to appear again.

And the "business" of that non-partisan group's meeting? To approve a motion to donate the several thousands of dollars that remained in our post-election pot, all of which had gone to Democrats anyway, to the CA Democratic party, for use as it saw fit. I, of course, was the sole "no" vote. I resigned from that board shortly thereafter.

Perhaps, SVn, if you were frank and forthright with your fellow Federalists about your sexuality, as I've been w/ mine since I first joined them over 20 years ago, they might change their views, or at least their outward expressions of them. My experience has consistently been that when a conservative changes his mind, it's a genuine change that lasts, unlike the lip service that so-many Democrats give to our cause, only to curl their lips at us when we're not around to see them snarl or smirk. You're in a position to change minds; don't squander that opportunity or berate others for their efforts to do so, especially when - however infrequently - they actually do.

Fair enough. But I think your story tends to support the proposition that (1) humans can ostensibly say one thing while believing another, or that they can be two-faced, and (2) blacks are treated badly in 'liberal' organizations sometimes.

I fail to see how that addresses the main contention: GOPers and conservative groups, even if they ostensibly 'welcome' LGBT individuals, snicker and condescend to them as soon as their backs are turned.

I also served on an "associates committee" (read, a BS group in the large law firm that bitched, inevitably, when bonuses came out, always claiming--no matter what the bonus was--that associates deserved more). They started a ladies committee while I was there with one law partner and a handful of female associate 'leaders'. The associate's committee I was on, it turns out, had 4 members, all of us male. What LITTLE power there was (and it was small) was vested almost exclusively in our organization. Not de jure, but de facto. We had a meeting with the new ladies committee, I took their concerns to heart (maternity leave issues, lack of female partners, inequality in pay vis-a-vis gender, etc). Fair and decent grievances, and certainly some based in truth.

As soon as the ladies left the meeting all the guys (the other 3) started laughing at them and their presentation. Belittling their cause and otherwise revealing they thought of the women as a joke. I didn't like this, mind you, but I also didn't make a huge fuss--thinking I could effect more change from the inside than the outside.

All I can say is, some people while smile to your face and laugh as soon as you leave. I sense and have personally witnessed that happening to LGBTs and black people a lot more in GOP/conservative organizations than in Dem/liberal organizations.

You won't be seeing me at any KKK meetings either. I know where my bread is buttered.